Arizona weekly journal-miner., 1887-10-26
s,ssr.es oss,s oa,..sa..
UNITED STATES CIVIL cAsEs.

Oseesscs oosss oaeonaas. UNITED STATES CIVIL cAsks. 1 1. The United States, vs 0eorge W
 Hsnce ct al U 8 Attorney for p:ais
 tiff; Rush. Wells 4 Howard tor defend ants.
 3. The United States vs George W
 Hover ct al; U Attorney for plain06 Rush, wells < Howard for defendants 3. The United States VI John H Ns rion ct al: U 5 attorney for plaintiff Ew Wells for defendsnta {. The United StAtes vs Wm c Days ct al; U $ attorney for plaintiff Rush. Wells { Howard for deiendants. l. 5. Art Mcdonald VI Atlantic ( Pa cifc Railroad Company. Harris Bald. win for plaintiff; W c Hasledins and Herndon { Hawkins for defendant
 TERRITORIAL CRIMINAL cAsEs.
 l. Geo W LAil vs James W Colgau. Clark Churchill for plaintiff; Rush { Weils Tor OefendAnt.
 ,. John A Webb VI John Man. l. r Eggers for plaintiff; Rush { wells for defendant.
 5. Oscar Lincoln VI Anna Curtis, ex- ecutrix; Howard and McGrew for plain tiff; F. N Sanford for defendant
 h re K J Cartmell ct al VI tho Howell Smelling and Mining Company. Hern. don < Hawkins and 2 V Sanford for plaintiff; J Howard for deiendant
 5. J W. Sullivan vs George Puntney; Herndon { Hawkins for plaintiff; E M Sanford for defendant.
 6. Palmer ( Ray vs wm O O'Neill. Rush, wells < Howard for plaintiff; E N Sanford for defendant.
 :. A c Clough vs James Wing. Rush < Wells for plaintiff; Herndon < Hsw- kins for defendant.
 3. P W Strshan vs St Louis and Ys- vapai Mill and Mining Company. Rush, Wells 4 Howard for plaintiff; Hera- don < Hawkins for defendant.
 9. Jake Marks VI St Louis and Yava- pal Mill and Mining Co. Rusb. wells { Howard for plaintiff; Herndon 4 Hawkins for defendant.
 10. John c Campbell and James V Baker vs wC B.shford, treasurer. Rush, Wells { Howard for plaintiis; John c Hsrndon for defendant.
 Il. Noah C Sheckles vs Richardson { Scamens. E N Sanford for plain Iif; Herndon & Hawkins for defenants.
 l2. Edward H Horton vs J F Osen- burg ct al. W H McGrew for plaintiff; Herndon < Hawkins for defendants.
 l3. Sam BAkis vs Frank Riselda. John Howard for plaintiff; Rush, wells | Howard for defendant
 IA. John Clark vs P P Daggs. Thos 2 Norris and Herndon & Hawkins for plaintiff w L Van Horn for defendant.
 l5. F A Tritle vs 2 Crow ct al E V ,anford for plaintiffs; Howard and Egg yers for defendants.
 l6 Nils Peterson VI Louis Wollen- ,urg; Rush, Wells & Howard for plain if; E N San lori for defendant
 IT. David G. Sindare VI Wm. Null 'enon W H McGrew for plaintiff ( HAwkins for defendant.
 ls. T simms vs Campbell ( Baker. Rush, Wells < Howard for defendants-
 19. John F. DAggs vs Harry Hox- vorth. w L Van Horn for plaintiff; I Miller for defendant.
 70. Jacob Ebinger vs ArisouA Cattle Company. H J NiIlar for plaintiff; | rhos c Norris for defendant.
 2l. C W Beach VI Gaines. E Y sanford and Herndon ( Hawkins for L F EgEes for defendant.
 2. Edison Long VI Thos g Bullock. Iohn Howard for plaintiG; E V San ord for defendant.
 g. Aztec Land and Cattle Company e J F DAggs ct q. Rush. Welh | Toward and I 5 Bunch for plaintiff; | Y L Van Horn for defendants.
 "A Robert Scott vs 0eorse D Ne le and Fl B Leonard. Eeyers and Toward for plaintiff; Howard and eAn- ord for defendants.
 g. Territory of Arizona ex rel Briggs vs Oscar Lincoln ct d. Briggs odrich, attorney general, for plaintiff 26 W c stewart vs R Kilpatzick. Ierndon ( Hawkins for plaintiff; E V An!ord for defendant
 z7. SAiAu.l Brookwits vs D Levy ct l. L r Egsers for plaintiff; E Y San ,rd for defendant.
 2S. F N Morgnest ct sl vs the Walnut irOve Water Storage Company. Ed 'Arsie & Chalmers and E M Sanford ,r plaintiff: Sumner Howard for de- .ndant
 APPEALED cAsEs-TKRRIroRIAL l. " H McGrew. appellant, vs CW each. respondent W H McGrew for ppellAnt; Rush, Wells ( Howard for ,spond.n.. I ?. W H Williams, respondent, vs ampbel < Baker, appellant E V San nd for respondent; Rush. Welk 4 toward for appellant. 3. Jchn Chart, appellant, VI Jef D hipp, respondent. Herndon q Haw- ins for appellant; Rush, Wells ( Hov- 'd for respondent.
 4. Philip HohAn, respondent, w E OI 'ilcox, appellant Thos 0 Norris foE -pondent; H J Miller for appellant. 5- 5 Smith, respcn.lent, vs David sbiti, appellant. H J Miller for re- ondent; 1hos G Norris for appellant.
 DIVORCE cAsHs.
 l. Ardrew Gonzales vs Emma Goa Iles. H L Van Horn for plaintiff; Fl Miller for dsfvptsnt. |, ]. Emma Gcnzxlss vs Andsew s Con- les. H J Miller for plaintiff; V L It an Horn for defendant.
 T.,